Which Side Are Environmentalists On?

Watching Bill Clinton’s interview with Jon Stewart earlier today, I was struck by one thing: Clinton’s advocacy of Walmart’s environmental practices. If the 42nd President is to be believed, the retailing giant has pioneered a series of seemingly impressive environmental initiatives, particularly in the use of solar photovoltaics, and in reducing VMT for its vast fleet of trucks. All very well and good, and the sort of thing that one would hope more in the business community would support.

Coalition politics requires compromise: adversaries will always attempt to offer different groups benefits in order to kick-start a circular firing squad on the other side. Wal-Mart is particularly adept at this, offering large amounts of cash to buy off civil rights organizations such as MALDEF. But it is hard to see how honoring Walmart will get the environmental movement where it wants to go. Breaking apart a tenuous progressive coalition only serves to assist the Republican Party, which has essentially declared war on the environment. Until and unless Republicans actually undertake to defend the planet, environmentalists are better off sticking with their current allies. Straddling will only weaken the already-weak environmental movement: sitting on a fence has deleterious anatomical effects — at least for men.

Natalie Merchant, reprising the old tune, puts it most clearly and cleanly:

one should distinguish between policy changes advocated by environmental activists and the atomistic business case based programs advanced by people like bill clinton, as perhaps the more prominent example. there’s certainly a lot of overlap between the two but one should not confuse the latter with the former.

one should distinguish between policy changes advocated by environmental activists and the atomistic business case based programs advanced by people like bill clinton, as perhaps the more prominent example. there’s certainly a lot of overlap between the two but one should not confuse the latter with the former.

.
Bill Clinton gave a great speech at the Democratic convention, but his wet-kiss praise for Walmart on the Daily Show is unforgivable. Hillary once served on Wal-mart’s board, which is based in Bill’s home state of Arkansas. Is
the quid-pro-quo for Walmart’s contribution to Clinton’s foundation that Bill has to praise a union-busting corporation that pays poverty wages, discriminates against women, exploits immigrants, and donates to right-wing causes?

.
Bill Clinton gave a great speech at the Democratic convention, but his wet-kiss praise for Walmart on the Daily Show is unforgivable. Hillary once served on Wal-mart’s board, which is based in Bill’s home state of Arkansas. Is
the quid-pro-quo for Walmart’s contribution to Clinton’s foundation that Bill has to praise a union-busting corporation that pays poverty wages, discriminates against women, exploits immigrants, and donates to right-wing causes?